HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012-2013 Lockout Discussion Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-20-2012, 02:13 PM
  #401
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,847
vCash: 500
Craig Custance wrote about issues on the CBA

Now I see why the big market teams are hesitant to share more revenue

If this stuff is true

Quote:
It's still fairly early in CBA negotiations, but there are some teams pushing for a restructuring in the way salary cap totals are calculated. Part of the motivation is to limit future Kovalchuk-like contracts. However, a desire to punish the teams that pushed the limits with past massive, long-term contracts has to be fueling the drive as well.

One suggested solution is that annual salary cap hits become the actual salary in that season rather than the average salary over the life of the contract. Another solution would be to average the first five seasons or five highest salaried seasons of these long-term deals to come up with their salary cap number.

"There are teams nervous this is going to happen," said one NHL source.
The NHL hasn't proposed this.

Custance speculated amnesty buyouts would allow teams to remove the above mentioned situation. He also speculated a possible solution would be a certain % of the salary be counted against the cap. 75% of Richards $12M in 12-13 would carry a $9M cap hit. He also mentioned another salary rollback. Why would Fehr would agree to any of the ****?

Custance came up with a $54M cap and $42M floor from reading some Edmonton blogger. Its $50.8M and $38.8M

Quote:
New York Rangers
Actual salary for 2012-13: $67.1 million
Amount over proposed NHL cap: $13.1 million
Salary saved by 20 percent rollback: $13.4 million

Notes: The Rangers total includes salary for Wade Redden and Chris Drury's buyout. There are many who believe the option to bury a player in the AHL won't exist in the new CBA. The Rangers back-loaded Marc Staal's contract, which helps balance the heavily front-loaded deal given to Brad Richards. Richards is slated to earn $12 million next year which would be the Rangers' highest cap hit under this system and a candidate for a transition rule decrease. Rangers also still need to sign Michael Del Zotto, a restricted free agent.
Quote:
The question becomes: Who would push for such a change? If enacted, this measure would negatively impact some of the league's most influential owners. Would those teams go along with that? And is the other side of the negotiating table receptive to it?
http://insider.espn.go.com/nhl/blog/...ggest-spenders

He answered his own question.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
08-20-2012, 02:38 PM
  #402
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,497
vCash: 500
I suggested the 5 year average as well. Actually, I think it should be a 5 year moving average, but that's just me.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
08-20-2012, 03:07 PM
  #403
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 19,994
vCash: 500
there is absolutely ZERO chance that happens. Both sides wont let that happen. Youd have 1/3rd of the teams WAY over the salary cap, you'd have dozens of players forced out of their teams due to their contracts, etc.

You could make that rule on all contracts going forward, but to not grandfather all those old contracts? lol, that aint happening.

Inferno is offline  
Old
08-20-2012, 03:56 PM
  #404
NYRKindms
Registered User
 
NYRKindms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 582
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
there is absolutely ZERO chance that happens. Both sides wont let that happen. Youd have 1/3rd of the teams WAY over the salary cap, you'd have dozens of players forced out of their teams due to their contracts, etc.

You could make that rule on all contracts going forward, but to not grandfather all those old contracts? lol, that aint happening.
It really makes you wonder about the moves in the off season so far.

Did the owners throw around the big money to Parise, the attempted offer sheeting etc, the trades etc all knowing they were going to sign these deals but reneg on them ?

Really ****** if so. Why not offer these guys HUGE contracts and get them locked in, then when the CBA gets rolled back we are good to go.

NYRKindms is offline  
Old
08-20-2012, 06:02 PM
  #405
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,847
vCash: 500
Quote:
I get the sense #NHL #CBA meetings (wed/thurs in T-zero) this week will go a long way to determining if there's a lockout or not.
Quote:
Agenda is reserved for core economic issues (HRR) and system issues (contract rights etc.) -- make or break stuff.
https://twitter.com/michaelgrange

Where is revenue sharing?

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
08-20-2012, 06:11 PM
  #406
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,847
vCash: 500
Quote:
For one thing, while the NFL and NBA have gone to more of a 50-50 split in revenues — and this is the industry standard the NHL owners wish to emulate — the way in which those sports define the revenue they split differs from the NHL’s definition. “The economic systems are different in the various sports,” Fehr pointed out. “For example, the football number is not based on the same revenue definitions [as the NHL] even remotely.”

As Fehr explained it, when we hockey fans and media have discussed a 50-50 revenue split, we’re not talking about dividing the same revenue pool that the negotiators are discussing. What they are discussing is “Hockey Related Revenue (HRR)” which is not the total amount of revenue in the business. HRR is revenue from which a number of items have been subtracted. I elaborated on what HRR is, as defined by the current CBA, in a post earlier this month. Among what is removed from the total revenue are: money teams make from waiver claims on players; money the NHL makes from moving teams or granting expansion franchises; revenues that teams receive from operating other clubs, such as AHL affiliates; fines collected from players and teams; any money teams make through financial transactions, such as loans, interest income or investments; and the sale or leasing of real estate. All those categories of revenue don’t count when determining HRR, which is the pool from which the players draw their percentage under this salary cap system. Additionally, the CBA excludes from HRR “any costs, including fixed and variable costs, attributable to a revenue-generating activity” — anything spent while accumulating HRR, including the salaries of employees whose duties contribute to the revenue activities.
Quote:
On top of that, as I mentioned in that earlier Red Light post, the owners want to make changes to the current definition of HRR and take even more out of it — what it costs to occupy their arenas and a percentage of their finance, support and general management expenses.
http://nhl-red-light.si.com/2012/08/...sct=nhl_t11_a0

They're going to get this stuff worked out meeting twice a week for 3-4 hours a day by September 15.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
08-20-2012, 06:46 PM
  #407
CH2
Registered User
 
CH2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 1,360
vCash: 500
A few things:

-I wonder if the players would concede to a 50-50 split with a re-defined HRR if the owners increased revenue sharing and kept the cap above 60 million.

-Why not make it 4 year ELC and 5 year RFA and in turn, the players keep salary arbitration (can opt once) and if a team chooses to walk away they must pay the player a severance (~half league minimum or less).

-Let teams exchange cash in transactions to help smaller market teams take on cap hits without needing to come up with the full salaried amount.



As an aside: If players are going to Sochi for the Olympics, wouldn't that be a perfect time for the NHL to schedule some games in Europe? Some players will already be over there and a few games the week after the Olympics would be great exposure to European audiences.

CH2 is offline  
Old
08-20-2012, 06:59 PM
  #408
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
BOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooo000000000000000000 00@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@©©©©©©©®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®:-O:-O:-O:-O:-O:-O:-O:-O:-O:-O:-O:-O:-O:-O:-O:-OrrrrrrrrrrRRRRRRRRIIIIIIII1111111111111111111111N NNNNNNNnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggGgggggGGGGGGGGGgggg

This is going to be the worst fall and winter...

Greedy ****ers....drop the puck!!!

SupersonicMonkey* is offline  
Old
08-20-2012, 08:33 PM
  #409
Kane One
Global Moderator
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
 
Kane One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 27,657
vCash: 3075
How are they subtracting a bunch of expenses from the HRR? Shouldn't they just call it Hockey Related Equity instead?

__________________
Kane One is offline  
Old
08-20-2012, 08:48 PM
  #410
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
There should be two separate caps.

1- RFA, ELC, "franchised players".

2- UFA

Clubs can keep their RFAs and still improve via UFA.

There is no way to make the market 100% "fair".

The big market clubs will always have a higher payroll and have more pull when "star" players become UFAs.

But at least this would allow a team like Nashville to keep both Weber and Suter.

Allow teams to "franchise" star homegrown players. Allow them to retain their RFAs, and ELC players.

Separate, more restrictive cap regarding UFAs.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline  
Old
08-20-2012, 09:09 PM
  #411
CH2
Registered User
 
CH2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 1,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
There should be two separate caps.

1- RFA, ELC, "franchised players".

2- UFA

Clubs can keep their RFAs and still improve via UFA.

There is no way to make the market 100% "fair".

The big market clubs will always have a higher payroll and have more pull when "star" players become UFAs.

But at least this would allow a team like Nashville to keep both Weber and Suter.

Allow teams to "franchise" star homegrown players. Allow them to retain their RFAs, and ELC players.

Separate, more restrictive cap regarding UFAs.
I like this concept. It will reign in contracts for RFAs that teams are locking in at above market rate **Flyers**.

CH2 is offline  
Old
08-20-2012, 09:34 PM
  #412
iamitter
Thornton's Hen
 
iamitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,363
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
There should be two separate caps.

1- RFA, ELC, "franchised players".

2- UFA

Clubs can keep their RFAs and still improve via UFA.

There is no way to make the market 100% "fair".

The big market clubs will always have a higher payroll and have more pull when "star" players become UFAs.

But at least this would allow a team like Nashville to keep both Weber and Suter.

Allow teams to "franchise" star homegrown players. Allow them to retain their RFAs, and ELC players.

Separate, more restrictive cap regarding UFAs.
But how would you then do Weber and Suter? They were UFAs (Weber in one year, but nonetheless).

Does the cap for RFAs only apply until they would hit UFA years? Way too complicated.

iamitter is offline  
Old
08-20-2012, 09:40 PM
  #413
trueblue9441
Registered User
 
trueblue9441's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bronx, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,414
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to trueblue9441
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
There should be two separate caps.

1- RFA, ELC, "franchised players".

2- UFA

Clubs can keep their RFAs and still improve via UFA.

There is no way to make the market 100% "fair".

The big market clubs will always have a higher payroll and have more pull when "star" players become UFAs.

But at least this would allow a team like Nashville to keep both Weber and Suter.

Allow teams to "franchise" star homegrown players. Allow them to retain their RFAs, and ELC players.

Separate, more restrictive cap regarding UFAs.
way too complicated. and the pa would never go for a more restrictive cap on UFA's. you have guys wait all that time to become a UFA and there's a restrictive cap on what they'd get paid? PA would absolutely never go for that

trueblue9441 is offline  
Old
08-20-2012, 10:39 PM
  #414
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,283
vCash: 500
there are things that need to be clarified but not sure how its 'too complicated', its only 'complicated' with lots of questions cause the details haven't been laided out

CM PUNK is online now  
Old
08-20-2012, 11:25 PM
  #415
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 50
Idea of revenue sharing doesn't appeal me. I don't want hard earned cash by the Rangers to be put in the pockets of the Isles and Devils. Just my 2 cents tho.

Kershaw is offline  
Old
08-21-2012, 12:52 AM
  #416
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
Idea of revenue sharing doesn't appeal me. I don't want hard earned cash by the Rangers to be put in the pockets of the Isles and Devils. Just my 2 cents tho.
the problem though is that unless you are willing to contract or relocate teams, revenue sharing is likely the only way to try to build up those weak sisters so you don't always have a situation of the playing to the lowest common denominator and having those teams pull down the top teams preventing or slowing further growth

its a completely different animal but most people look at the nfl as the ideal business model for a sport and one of the biggest reasons that they got to where they are is cause wellington mara and other big market owners made the decision to share revenue and help build up the lesser teams instead of burying them. over time that revenue sharing helped increase the value of those 'lesser' teams which in turn increased the value of the league which in turn increased the value of the big market teams as the leagues tv revenue, etc went thru the roof.

the biggest key imo is having some kind of rules in place to try to insure that the revenue sharing $$ is being reinvested into the team to help increase the revenue of that team, not simply stuck into the owners pocket like you get in mlb.

CM PUNK is online now  
Old
08-21-2012, 02:06 PM
  #417
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
the biggest key imo is having some kind of rules in place to try to insure that the revenue sharing $$ is being reinvested into the team to help increase the revenue of that team, not simply stuck into the owners pocket like you get in mlb.
At least the Devils are making an effort to field a competitive team. Compare with a team that's never reached the cap floor, never has less than $17M in free cap space and has annually had ~10% of their "payroll" tied up in buyouts. How are they allowed to participate in revenue sharing? If Wang is getting money from the league, it certainly isn't going to back into hockey operations of any kind.

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
08-21-2012, 02:10 PM
  #418
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
Idea of revenue sharing doesn't appeal me. I don't want hard earned cash by the Rangers to be put in the pockets of the Isles and Devils. Just my 2 cents tho.
Im usually all for free market capitalism, but its a bit different here. Not two teams are on the same playing field in terms of revenue potential.

Dolan can charge whatever the **** he wants in terms of tickets, concessions, etc - and he'll find 18,000 people per night that will pay it in a city of 8 million. You think other teams have that advantage?

Hard earned cash? Hardly.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
08-21-2012, 02:16 PM
  #419
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr. View Post
At least the Devils are making an effort to field a competitive team. Compare with a team that's never reached the cap floor, never has less than $17M in free cap space and has annually had ~10% of their "payroll" tied up in buyouts. How are they allowed to participate in revenue sharing? If Wang is getting money from the league, it certainly isn't going to back into hockey operations of any kind.
If you're talking about the Isles--they are not part of the revenue sharing agreement because they are in a large (over 2.5 million) TV market. Ditto the Devils. There are only something like 10 teams that benefit from revenue sharing.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
08-21-2012, 02:20 PM
  #420
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Im usually all for free market capitalism, but its a bit different here. Not two teams are on the same playing field in terms of revenue potential.

Dolan can charge whatever the **** he wants in terms of tickets, concessions, etc - and he'll find 18,000 people per night that will pay it in a city of 8 million. You think other teams have that advantage?

Hard earned cash? Hardly.
Of course, the kicker here is that you cant means test for stupid ownership/managerial decisions.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
08-21-2012, 02:33 PM
  #421
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,847
vCash: 500
The Islanders and Devils aren't eligible for revenue sharing under the current NHL program. They play in a market with 2.5 million TV households. The PA has proposed dumping those restrictions. Mr. Lehman Brothers can't pay his loans.

Quote:
But the Devils’ deep playoff run brought in $32 million in extra revenue, which has given Vanderbeek breathing room to seek a better deal. The team has sold 1,500 new full season-ticket packages for next season, and the renewal rate for existing season-ticket holders is nearly 95 percent, compared to 84 percent last year.

In November, Forbes valued the team at $181 million, the 20th-most valuable franchise in the N.H.L. The Devils are one of the most indebted teams in the league, with debts worth 100 percent of the value of the club, Forbes said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/sp...investors.html

Jersey generates enough revenue. Their owner just made some bad business deals. It wasn't that long ago Jersey had a big payroll. Will they be eligible for revenue sharing because Mr.Lehman defaulted on his loans? The big market teams won't be in favor of that. The NHL has the $2.5M restriction in there for a reason.

The Islanders are a lost cause.

Both of these jokers have Cablevision giving them millions already for the TV rights. The Devils get something like $25M per.

Quote:
His New Jersey Devils hockey team is months late on an $80 million debt payment to lenders and is looking for a balance-sheet miracle — that is, the securitization of its long-term TV deal with the MSG Network, a move that Vanderbeek hopes will raise exactly that much cash.

But two sources close to the situation say it appears the money-losing franchise, which has been shopping the deal with the help of Goldman Sachs since at least November, is having trouble getting the deal done.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...#ixzz24DB7YY4Z

They be responsible for paying back the principal and interest.


Last edited by RangerBoy: 08-21-2012 at 02:43 PM.
RangerBoy is offline  
Old
08-21-2012, 04:58 PM
  #422
CH2
Registered User
 
CH2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 1,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
The Islanders and Devils aren't eligible for revenue sharing under the current NHL program. They play in a market with 2.5 million TV households. The PA has proposed dumping those restrictions. Mr. Lehman Brothers can't pay his loans.



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/sp...investors.html

Jersey generates enough revenue. Their owner just made some bad business deals. It wasn't that long ago Jersey had a big payroll. Will they be eligible for revenue sharing because Mr.Lehman defaulted on his loans? The big market teams won't be in favor of that. The NHL has the $2.5M restriction in there for a reason.

The Islanders are a lost cause.

Both of these jokers have Cablevision giving them millions already for the TV rights. The Devils get something like $25M per.



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...#ixzz24DB7YY4Z

They be responsible for paying back the principal and interest.
I wonder if Dolan would consider letting the deals with these teams lapse. Keep Knicks and Rangers on MSG and MSG+, get rid of MSG2, focus on other programming such as bringing the Nets on or promoting soccer more.

CH2 is offline  
Old
08-21-2012, 05:33 PM
  #423
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,010
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Im usually all for free market capitalism, but its a bit different here. Not two teams are on the same playing field in terms of revenue potential.

Dolan can charge whatever the **** he wants in terms of tickets, concessions, etc - and he'll find 18,000 people per night that will pay it in a city of 8 million. You think other teams have that advantage?

Hard earned cash? Hardly.
With revenue sharing, the owners should also carry the cost of their franchises. A high-revenue franchise will be priced accordingly.

Brian Boyle is offline  
Old
08-21-2012, 05:54 PM
  #424
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,847
vCash: 500
Fehr spoke today after the NHLPA meetings in Kelowna,BC

Quote:
NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr negotiates privately behind closed doors rather than publicly in front of a sea of microphones. However, it’s not surprising that the NHL owners’ proposal for a new collective bargaining agreement that includes contracts limited to five years with entry-level deals going from three to five years, the abolishment of arbitration and 10 years of service required to become an unrestricted free agent has rubbed the players the wrong way.

“It’s no secret that there are things that are very important to players and they become more important in certain kinds of systems,” Fehr said Tuesday after concluding two days of meetings here with 38 NHLPA members. “What would it take to get players to move off those kind of things would be major concessions on the other side. A concession is when you give up something you have, not when you modify a position about something you don’t have. If somebody said I asked for everything you have and now I’ll only take half of everything you have, that’s not a concession. It’s when I say I’ll give you something.”
http://blogs.theprovince.com/2012/08...n-free-agency/

What does Fehr want that the NHL has? For him to make changes in contracts,arbitration and entry level contracts. Especially changes in contracts and dumping arbitration. The PA has proposed eliminating walk aways in salary arbitration.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
08-21-2012, 05:59 PM
  #425
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,847
vCash: 500
Quote:
NHLPA Proposal - Industry Growth Fund: It would be part of a wider plan totaling $250 million in annual redistributed funds.
https://twitter.com/walsha/status/238046156989530113

Quote:
NHLPA Proposed Industry Growth Fund: Bettman would be given the chance to decide how money from the industry growth fund is spread around.
https://twitter.com/walsha/status/238046468366270464

Quote:
Bettman’s discretion in the union’s proposed Industry Growth Fund would differ from the baseball commissioner’s discretionary fund, which Bud Selig is allowed to distribute in any way he sees fit. For example, last year Selig lent the Mets $25 million in discretionary funds while the team was reeling from the Bernie Madoff fallout.

Bettman would not have complete discretionary control over the N.H.L.’s Industry Growth Fund, and it would be specifically earmarked for revenue-sharing. Nevertheless, the option to appeal to Bettman for discretionary funds might intrigue owners like the Blue Jackets’ John McConnell or the Islanders’ Charles Wang.
http://slapshot.blogs.nytimes.com/20...y-growth-fund/

The PA is giving Bettman the authority to control the fund.

RangerBoy is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:39 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.